Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Education Bill

Clause 72 - Interpretation of Part 6

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 470, in page 48, line 42, at end insert:
''''is religious education'', in relation to maintained nursery schools or the provision of funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school, means—
(a) (in maintained nursery schools) such elements of the local agreed syllabus as are appropriate to its pupils' age, ability and aptitude, and
(b) (in relation to funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school) such education about the religion prevalent among the pupils' receiving funded nursery education as the provider considers appropriate to those pupils' religious heritage (or, where there is no majority, the Christian religion), and to their age, ability and aptitude.''

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 471, in clause 93, page 61, line 11, at end insert:
''''religious education'', in relation to maintained nursery schools or the provision of funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school, means—
(c) (in maintained nursery schools) such elements of the local agreed syllabus as are appropriate to its pupils age, ability and aptitude, and
(d) (in relation to funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school) such education about the religion prevalent among the pupils' receiving funded nursery education as the provider considers appropriate to those pupils' religious heritage (or, where there is no majority, the Christian religion), and to their age, ability and aptitude.''

Andrew Turner: I offer a warm welcome to you, Mr. Pike. The amendments probe the Government's intentions with regard to religious education in nursery schools and in nursery settings in Wales. There appears to be no obligation for nursery education to be provided in nursery schools or nursery settings, but there is an obligation for religious education to be provided in nursery classes in primary schools. The approach is inconsistent, and the amendment would remove the inconsistency in clause 72 with regard to England and in clause 93 with regard to Wales by dealing separately with maintained nursery schools and other nursery settings. I note that the word ''is'' appears on the top line of amendment No. 470 on the amendment paper. That should not be there. The insertion should be identical to that of amendment No. 471.
 I propose that we insert two separate definitions of religious education that apply to maintained nursery schools and to nursery provision. The first definition, 
 which relates to maintained nursery schools, applies the local agreed syllabus as it would broadly be taught in nursery classes in primary schools according to the age, ability and aptitude of the pupils. That is uncontroversial. The second definition would make suggestions about nursery settings, which are cumbersomely called 
''funded nursery education otherwise than at a maintained school or maintained nursery school''. 
The nursery settings are not involved in the creation of the agreed syllabus. However, in some cases they are provided by religious organisations and in other cases by secular organisations. They provide for a wide range of pupils, who would be drawn in some areas from a large number of communities and in others from quite a homogeneous community. There are many settings associated with Catholic primary schools in my constituency, as there are few nursery schools but many pre-school playgroups, as they used to be called, that are associated with primary schools. One can imagine that the pupils in such a setting will be mainly Roman Catholic. It would therefore be appropriate that the religious education that is delivered in that setting should be consistent with the Roman Catholic faith. Similarly, it might be appropriate for the education provided in a setting associated with a mosque to be consistent with the Muslim faith. 
 In areas where the pupils are drawn from mixed communities where there is no prevalent religion or religious tradition, it would be appropriate for the Christian religion to be taught in a way that the provider believes is consistent with pupils' religious heritage and their age, ability and aptitude. The amendment is designed to discover the Government's intentions for religious education in nursery schools and nursery settings and to set out proposals appropriate for pupils of this age. I have not sought to apply the whole agreed syllabus in nursery settings because some faith groups expect their faith to be promoted and I do not want to compete with or contradict their wishes in that respect.

Phil Willis: I apologise for arriving slightly late to this afternoon's sitting.
 I vigorously oppose both amendments and I hope that the Minister will oppose them as strongly as I do. If we start bringing religious education into early years settings, where are we going to end up? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) argued that faiths should be promoted in such settings, but I can think of nothing worse than a state-funded system that allows children in the Welsh valleys, for example, to be indoctrinated in a particular denomination at so young an age. I hope that the Minister will vigorously oppose that. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for tabling the amendment because it will show where the Government stand on early years religious education. As I understand it, all early years settings—whether in Wales under the aegis of the Welsh Assembly or in England under the aegis of the 
 Secretary of State—receive funding for three and four-year-olds without the proviso of having to deliver any specific curriculum. 
 In the previous Parliament, the Secretary of State was forward-thinking in listening to the views of early years partnerships from the maintained nursery sector through to the Pre-school Learning Alliance and other voluntary groups and reaching a compromise on early learning goals, which were centred on play and socialisation rather than delivering a curriculum. I hope that the present Government will not stray into prescribing a curriculum for early years education. I trust that the Minister will not only oppose the amendments but state clearly that the Government will not support state-funded religious indoctrination in nursery schools.

Chris Grayling: I rise in response to the substance and the principle of the amendment. I am unsympathetic to the amendment, but not on grounds of the principle outlined by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), whose concerns about religious education in schools I find disturbing. I ask him whether it is inappropriate for teachers in a nursery school celebrating Christmas to read pupils the Christmas story? Is any element of religious explanation inappropriate when Christmas or any other religious festival is being celebrated in a pre-school environment?

Phil Willis: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I did not say that. He should spend some time in early years settings [Interruption.] I apologise, I meant in order to gain a grasp of what goes on in those settings. Of course it is right and proper for a nursery school in Leicester, for example, to make Diwali celebrations part and parcel of what it provides, irrespective of whether a pupil is from a Christian family, of no faith or whatever. The notion of an early years school in the Rhondda valley celebrating Christmas is a wholly different issue from the state providing an RE syllabus to prescribe what should be taught. There is a difference between celebrating faith and the aim of the amendment, which is about promoting faith in early years settings.

Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but I find his comments rather patronising. I have visited many early years settings in recent weeks and taken a close interest in the problems that they face as a result of an overbearing curriculum being imposed by the Government.

Phil Willis: It would be even more overbearing under the amendment.

Andrew Turner: That is why my hon. Friend is criticising it.

Chris Grayling: However well intentioned, the amendment is inappropriate because I am concerned about the way in which central Government continue to impose rules, regulations and curriculum guidelines on early years settings. I hope that we will have a
 further opportunity to debate the provisions that set out curriculum requirements for early years education, which should be opposed to the hilt. In this particular case, an addition to the curriculum—already unwanted—would be undesirable. I have no problem with guidance suggesting that early years organisations should feel free to deal with religious issues, celebrate religious festivals and make young children aware of their religious context.
 Will the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough assure me that his party is not seeking to remove religion from our schooling? Several of his comments gave me the greatest possible doubt about his party's level of support for religious education.

Phil Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman takes such a close interest in Liberal Democrat policy. He raises a fair point, so let me assure him that that is not my party's intention. He was not a member of the Conservative Government when they introduced post-1988 the idea of clarifying religious education. They wanted to achieve consensus about how religious education should be taught in schools and the religious syllabus. That was all positive. The dividing line comes with indoctrination. That is where we cross from educating young people about religion in its broader sense—that must be a multi-faith approach, because we live in a multi-faith society—and using the state system to indoctrinate people in a particular faith.
 Those two viewpoints are fundamentally different. As a practising Christian, I do not want religious education removed from schools, but my party and I are determined to ensure that other faiths are equally celebrated, and that young people have an understanding of faiths throughout the world, and the benefits and virtues that those faiths—

Peter Pike: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I appreciate that it is a fine dividing line, but children should be aware of the spiritual dimension in their education. The absence of that is regrettable in too many places in our society. I support the aspiration behind the amendment, but it is unnecessary to impose additional curriculum requirements in this case. To prove the diversity of opinion in my party, I beg to differ from my hon. Friend.

Don Touhig: This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike.
 I understand the point of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I note that he said that the amendments were probing. My job is to assuage both his fears and those of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which is the judgment of Solomon after what they have said. 
 Early years providers need some flexibility so that they can deliver their own curriculum in response to the needs of children, families and their communities. In that way, they will create an effective early learning 
 environment and plan an appropriate curriculum. The curriculum guidance for foundation stage, which was published in May 2000, helps practitioners to provide such a curriculum, including support for education about religion, cultural beliefs and ceremonies. The early learning goals in England and the desirable outcomes in Wales set out those elements. The Bill will require all funded early years providers to support children to achieve early learning goals or desirable outcomes. That is central to our proposals for the foundation stage. I hope that that assuages the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. 
 However, an essential part of our approach to the foundation stage is that it includes a strong element of flexibility. It is right that all early years settings should have the flexibility to respond to the needs of the different children in their care. To accept the amendments would put that flexibility at risk, by explicitly requiring local providers to use the locally agreed RE syllabus for schools.

Andrew Turner: Does the Minister agree that the Bill does not require them to use the locally agreed syllabus in settings? It does in schools, but it allows settings to provide such education as the provider considers appropriate.

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, if we were to agree to the amendments, several providers would use the local RE syllabus as a basis on which they could deliver what the amendments require.
 It is right that all early years settings should have flexibility to respond to the needs of the children. My position makes further prescription unnecessary, and is supported by the Liberal Democrats and some official Opposition Members. I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will feel sufficiently content to withdraw the amendments.

Andrew Turner: I congratulate the Minister on his bravery in trying to bridge the gap between myself and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I would like to take a few points further.
 Clause 75 makes it clear that the Secretary of State must secure that certain functions of the national curriculum, including religious education and worship, are provided in nursery classes. With the exception of nursery schools and funded nursery education, it makes it clear that those requirements apply to nursery classes in primary schools. If the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough felt so strongly about religious indoctrination, as he put it, in early years education, I am surprised that he did not table an amendment to delete the requirement. 
 I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman described what I was saying as requiring the promotion of faith, because it does not. The promotion of faith may be one intention with which, for example, the Roman Catholic Church establishes a playgroup in association with a Roman Catholic primary school, but the point is about religious education. There is no gap between us on that. I do not see any danger of indoctrination in the valleys or other parts of the United Kingdom, but I worry that he does 
 not seem to appreciate that, although the early learning goals and desirable outcomes do not specify a curriculum in detail, they specify some points about what the Secretary of State is putting a considerable amount of money into and the reasons why she is doing that. 
 I noted carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am concerned that he is once again showing a certain hostility to religious education. The amendment would do no more than requiring all nursery schools and early years settings to do what the best do—that is not an unreasonable aspiration—and give a basic understanding of, for example, the Christmas story, if they are in association with a Christian school or if there is no prevalent faith in that setting, or other stories where the provision is by another faith group. 
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), I accept that there is a danger of over-regulation of the early years system. Indeed, I said as much in a debate in Westminster Hall. However, the spiritual development of youngsters is one of the most important functions with which we can assist, and I am concerned about the conflict between an all-embracing, a la carte view of religious education, which is far more than youngsters of that age are usually capable of accepting, and a clear understanding of the faith in which they have been brought up or, if they have not been brought up in any faith, the prevalent faith in this country. That said, the Minister has succeeded, at least, in bridging the gap between him and me, although the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is still perhaps a little way off. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: I should simply like to ask the Minister one swift question. The clause is concerned with interpretation and definition, and I have noted that the word ''maturities'' is used repeatedly throughout part 6. For example, one of the definitions in clause 72 reads:
'''attainment targets', in relation to a key stage, means the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils of different abilities and maturities are expected to have by the end of that stage''. 
I am sure that that is meant to mean something specific. That is why it is described as such in the Bill. I hope that it is, because if not it should not be there. I also assume that ''maturities'', does not mean the same as ''ages''. If it did, even in the jargon-bound world of the Department for Education and Skills, surely it would say ''ages''. 
 The Under-Secretary scoffs, but the one thing on which we must agree is that the world and the DFES are full of jargon. We should not work in jargon but in phrases that people can understand. Those who have to interpret a Bill such as this, including those who teach or run education establishments, should be able to do so just by looking at it. I am willing to accept that the word ''ages'' would not necessarily fit into this 
 description in place of ''maturities''. I do not suggest that it should, because I certainly accept that one child aged two years, five months and three weeks will not necessarily be at the same stage of development as another child of exactly the same age. I assume that to be the reason for the word ''maturities''. It is used not only in line 25 but repeatedly throughout part 6. I cannot tell from the Bill what it means. If others can, I should like to know. We deserve an explanation from the Minister about its exact meaning and why it is being used.

Don Touhig: In a previous incarnation as a councillor in Gwent, I once saw a report that described a pelican crossing as a pedestrian-assisted access way. We need to be careful about jargon and the words that we use. I take on board the point that the hon. Lady makes. The word ''maturities'' can cover a range of things, including age, ability and behaviour. As a father of four, I know that my children matured at different rates. It is quite a broad term. It is clear that children mature, by whatever target we set, at different times and at different ages. We are seeking to take account of that.
 We are all on a steep learning curve in relation to early years learning. We place great importance on it, which is why we have the foundation stage. I have twin granddaughters who are eight. They are like little sponges. They take on board the most extraordinary things. We all find that as parents and grandparents, and see it in children in our schools. That is the broadest explanation that I can give the hon. Lady.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate that the Minister has attempted to answer my question in a genuine way. I agree with everything he said. But how is that word, which is used again and again, to be interpreted? I did not table an amendment suggesting an alternative because I genuinely did not know what the Government meant by the term. Is the Bill to be read in conjunction with the Minister's words in Committee, or will the Government take steps to clarify to those who have to interpret the Bill what this word means?

Andrew Turner: I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's argument and by the Minister's answer. The word ''maturities'' in a physical context is relatively easy to understand, but in a developmental context, the word will be of great interest when we are considering the definition in clause 72 because we are looking at attainment targets. The definition as it applies in clause 72 suggests to me that different attainment targets will be set for pupils of different abilities and different developmental stages. Perhaps ''maturities'' means developmental stages in the psychological context?
 I am very glad to see the word ''maturities'' if it means what my hon. Friend has suggested as it would give greater scope to the providers of education to take account of the different developmental ages of different pupils. Like my hon. Friend, however, I am still intrigued to hear further from the Minister. 
 Mr. Touhig: I do not know if I can shed much more light on this.
 Those who have been involved in education—teachers and other practitioners—will have different levels of measurement for maturity. As I have said, it could be subjective in the case of social skills or behavioural skills, but those who will be teaching our young people will understand what is meant by it. In fact, these words were used in the Education Act 1996, which was passed by the previous Government.

Eleanor Laing: It is still jargon.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - meaning of ''nursery education'' and related expressions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: When I saw that this part of the Bill was about interpretation, I was disappointed that, although clause 73 is entitled
''meaning of 'nursery education' and related expressions'' 
it does not, in fact, explain the meaning of nursery education. 
 I was hoping that by reading this clause I would find a true definition of nursery education. The clause says that ''nursery education'' means: 
''full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age'' 
The debate, however, has raged for many years about the difference between child care and education. Where does education overlap with child care? When does child care also become education? Although these are matters of interest for the theorists involved, my point is that they are matters of practicality when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. I have not sought to amend this clause because I am looking for a further explanation from the Minister on the Government's thinking and intentions in this area. For example, the Government have pledged to provide places in early years education for all three-year-olds whose parents want them. But, what does that mean? Does it mean in a pre-school, in a playgroup, in a day nursery, at a holiday club, or with a childminder? The words in the Bill, which is being passed by a democratic process, should be clear and open to no misunderstanding. I appreciate, however, that it is not always possible to draw a line between what is child care and what is nursery education. 
 In every statistic that issuess forth from the Government we have confusion upon confusion. With each answer that my hon. Friends and I receive to questions such as, ''How many places are there for children aged three, four or five?'' the position becomes less clear. For example, in an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell on Tuesday 18 December 2001 to a question he asked on 
 Monday 10 December, we were told that the number of playgroups and pre-schools has reduced over the last three years, but that the number of day nurseries has increased. Are the Government saying that that is in equal measure? They appear to saying that, although the number of playgroups and pre-schools has reduced, the increase in the number of day nurseries means that the situation is better than it was. 
 Two months ago, when I questioned the responsible Minister about this during Education questions, I felt that we were given three different answers in the space of two minutes. The answer is not clear at all. I had hoped that, as this clause is entitled, 
''Meaning of 'nursery education' and related expressions'' 
it would actually tell us what the Government mean by nursery education and pre-school education and the entitlement of each child. If a parent reads in the newspapers that the Government have pledged a place for each child aged three or four, they may well think that their little boy or girl can go to a certain nursery school or day centre; but it is not clear. If it appears in the Bill, it should be clear. I have a very simple question: what do the Government mean by nursery education? Can we please have a proper definition that can be relied upon?

Ivan Lewis: I am delighted, Mr. Pike, that the respective position of our football teams in division one remains the same as when we last met.
 I have a serious response to the points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest. The clause responds directly to the concerns that the hon. Lady has expressed. It does so in several ways. It defines the meaning of nursery education very clearly as 
''full-time or part-time education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age''. 
It then goes on to recognise, for the first time in legislation, that there are a number of organisations in the private, voluntary and state sectors providing that sort of education. That is clarification from a historical perspective. Making the foundation stage part of the national curriculum requirement further clarifies the responsibilities of those who are providing a nursery education in any of those settings. Legislation has been vague and ambiguous in the past, and clause 73 is designed to tackle that ambiguity. 
 The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would put in the Bill pledges linked to child care and nursery provision. She knows full well that our record on those issues is second to none. Our commitment to future provision is unprecedented in view of this country's historic lack of investment in early years, whether in child care or nursery provision. 
 Nothing is more important in the development of our future citizens than getting the level of investment and commitment right in the early years. The Bill assists us in that, as well as enshrining the foundation stage in legislation for the first time. On the whole, that is popular with all providers, whether in the state, voluntary, or private sectors. What we mean by nursery education has never been clearer than in the 
 Bill. If the hon. Lady reflects on the situation, I am sure that she will accept that her reasonable concern is addressed directly in the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate that the Minister is genuinely trying to answer my question, but he has not done so. What is the difference between a day nursery and a playgroup or a pre-school and a holiday club? Do the Government intend that all those should be lumped together under the definition:
''education suitable for children who have not attained compulsory school age''? 
What does ''suitable'' mean? Who decides what is suitable? In one part of the country the Government's pledge for a place for a three-year-old might be interpreted as two hours a week in a playgroup, supervised by an unqualified assistant. In another part of the country the education authority might decide that a three-year-old requires five mornings a week in a pre-school, supervised or taught by a qualified teacher. 
 Will this be left as a loose definition so that those who provide funding in different parts of the country can come to their own conclusion about what they consider is necessary or suitable? Who is to decide on suitability? The Minister has missed one of my main points. How will parents know that there is a pledge for their children to have a certain type of education at a certain age when it is not clearly defined what that should be? We all know what children are entitled to between the ages of five and 16. If the Government have made a pledge, that pledge ought to be clear. The Minister's answer has not made it any clearer.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of definition is that in many areas, the provision is determined by the early years and child care development partnerships, which are largely partnerships of providers, rather than customers? Consequently the provision tends to be tailored to what is already being provided, rather than what is desired by the consumer.

Eleanor Laing: I accept that. Furthermore, parents generally know that at the age of five it is best for most children is to be in a mainstream school learning the basic curriculum. That is straightforward, but parents do not necessarily know what is best for a child at three or four. As the Minister said, that area is developing. The importance of education from a very early age has only just been recognised, and I recognise that, too.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: I will certainly give way to the chairman of the all-party group on child care, of which I am vice-chairman.

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that my point is a partisan one. Many Labour authorities have been providing early-years and nursery education for many years, despite not being funded to provide that service. Now we have a Government who are willing to spread the funding across every community that
 wants it and to communities, such as mine in Doncaster, that are able to offer added value for services on what they were trying to provide under Conservative Administrations.

Eleanor Laing: I accept that point, but I would take it further. Many Conservative-controlled authorities have been providing far more than other such authorities. With respect to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I must say that I expect that many authorities controlled by the Liberal Democrats have been doing the same. That reinforces my point that we do not have equality of provision throughout the country. It has been left to different education authorities to decide what is suitable. If the Government intend to leave the matter to every education authority or provider, let them say so, but if they are making a positive and definite pledge to all the children in the country, let that be made definite.

Phil Willis: The hon. Lady confuses me a little. I am trying to understand the point that she is making, but I think that most of us are struggling to get to grips with it. Surely she is not saying that we want all early-years education, wherever it is delivered in the country, to be the same, because that is what we mean by equality of provision. Surely the Government are providing funding and will then audit the funded provision by means of the curriculum and Ofsted inspections to ensure that the money is being used appropriately. Does that not give the hon. Lady enough safeguards to accept that there is equality of access to provision, although the provision may be different?

Eleanor Laing: No, it does not, although I appreciate the point. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confused about what I am asking; I am asking questions because my hon. Friends and I are confused about what the Government mean. I am pursuing the point, as I am beginning to suspect that the Government want to leave the matter in some confusion because for various reasons they do not want to provide a definition. If they do not want to provide one, let them say so, but if they truly want to give a definition, let the Minister give it now.
 The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that we do not want provision to be exactly the same throughout the country, but the Government have made a huge fuss in spinning about the promises that they have made about places for three and four-year-olds and so on. If they are making a pledge, it should be clear, so that people will know whether it has been adhered to. The clause is not clear, which is why I am asking further questions.

Ivan Lewis: I will be content for the people of this country to consider whether the Government are spinning on child care and early-years education or whether we have delivered significantly and will deliver even more in future. I will certainly be happy for people to contrast this Government's record of investment in child care and early-years education
 with what went on for the 20 years when there was a disgraceful abdication of responsibility in that policy area. That is what the debate is really about, although I am sorry to have to be partisan in this Committee. The hon. Lady is casting aspersions on the Government's commitment in this policy area. I am tempted to suggest that she should combine my original answer with that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to get what she really needs. However, if she wants me to go one stage further, I will clarify what is already in the public domain about our commitment for three-year-olds. This is not a revelation to the Committee; the pledge on three-years-olds is clear. It relates to providers in receipt of nursery education grant, whether they are in the maintained or non-maintained sector. They must follow a curriculum that is consistent with the foundation stage to be provided with two and a half hours of funded early education a day. That is the unequivocal pledge, which is clear and often repeated by Ministers.
 It is offensive for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to suggest that early-years partnerships are not consumer focused and do not consult parents or take account of users' needs, but are purely a vehicle for providers to maintain the status quo on the existing configuration of provision. There is no evidence to support that attack on their performance and responsibilities. They have been generally successful, innovative and responsive to community needs. They are representative in terms of voluntary and private sector involvement and, in my experience, go to extraordinary lengths to consult parents and their local communities before they decide on appropriate early-years and nursery education provision. 
 The hon. Lady is sincere in her commitment to the issues and has a strong belief in what we are trying to do with early-years and nursery education. However, I do not accept her concerns about a lack of clarity, either with the legislation or the Government's pledge, and do not believe that her aspersions are fair or reasonable. I ask the hon. Lady to accept my response. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - General requirements in relation to curriculum

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 480, in page 49, line 29, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 479, in page 49, line 37, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.
 No. 482, in clause 95, page 61, line 43, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'. 
 No. 481, in page 62, line 8, leave out 'adult' and insert 'later'.
 Mr. Brady: Thank you, Mr. Pike, and I add my welcome to you this afternoon. 
 The amendments should not detain the Committee for long, not least because, as those hon. Members who have examined them will have noticed, they would all replace one word with another. They remove an expectation that educational provision should prepare a child for adult life and replace it with a more sensible and appropriate requirement to prepare a child for later life. We have just discussed early-years education, and there is a long time between that and arrival at adult life. It would be more appropriate for early-years education to have a role in preparing the individual not for adult life, but for the challenges of later life in the more formal school environment. 
 Moving through a child's school career, a child in an infant school needs to be prepared, as a pressing matter, not for adult life but for the developmental challenges and other needs that must be addressed as he or she moves on to primary school. Through early years, infant and primary education, the crucial challenge is to prepare the child for secondary education, when a whole new set of challenges will arise—all of this long before adulthood. It is common sense that the requirement placed on the earlier stages of education should relate not only to a point after the end of formal schooling but to all the stages in the intervening years. I hope that the Minister will accept that our sensible amendment would improve the Bill.

Ivan Lewis: In a spirit of consensus and good will and, consistent with new Labour's desire to heal wounds and bring people together, the Government have significant sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment and wish to introduce an amendment on Report that reflects its sentiment and objective. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis: A breakthrough.

Graham Brady: As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a breakthrough. It is the first time in our proceedings that the Government have given any commitment to revisit any aspect of the Bill, notwithstanding that they have found it necessary to bring numerous amendments. However, it would be churlish to dwell on that when the Minister has responded with good grace. We are delighted to receive his assurance and look forward to seeing the Government's amendment. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Basic curriculum for every maintained school in England

Ivan Lewis: I beg to move Government amendment No. 412, in page 51, line 3, leave out
''342(6) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56)''
 and insert 
''71(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)''.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 413.

Ivan Lewis: These minor technical amendments are designed to rectify a clear oversight. The regulation of religious education in special schools in England and Wales comes under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and not the Education Act 1996, as is presently stated. The amendment corrects an error that has, unfortunately, been on the statute book since 1998. I hope that the Committee will support the amendments.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Basic curriculum for every maintained school in Wales

Amendment made: No. 413, in page 63, line 20, leave out: 
''342(6) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56)'' 
and insert: 
''71(7) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)''.—[Mr. Lewis.] 
Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 77, 79, 98 and 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 - Implementation in respect of nursery schools etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following: clause 106 stand part and new clause 3—Pre-school nurseries, etc.—
 '''Pre-school nurseries and other groups shall be free to modify any curriculum provision in the foundation stage unless subject to special measures.'''

Chris Grayling: New clause 3 is designed to address a problem that has been put to me by several providers of pre-school nurseries and playgroups. I have spent some time talking to the proprietors, teachers and child carers in those groups over the past few weeks and have come away with the inescapable conclusion that the Government, for all the right reasons but in
 many cases with the wrong consequences, are putting too onerous a curriculum on children and their carers. The children are very young and in many cases the carers are developed amateurs. Mothers, part-timers and even the proprietors of the groups often do the job in between looking after their own children.
 As a result of the restrictions that we are placing on those carers, they are spending long hours managing curriculums, writing detailed lesson plans and dealing with thick curriculum manuals. They are finding it very difficult to do the job. We must remember that we are talking about playgroups in church halls.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if other child care settings—pre-school playgroups or whatever—decide that they want to provide an additional early education service, for which they will be paid, they must ensure that the service can be audited against education services provided by other settings? That deals with the point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest raised about clarifying the type of nursery education to parents, and how it is provided in different settings.

Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments: she makes an important point. Government should not be expected to contribute large amounts of money to the early years sector without a say in how it is spent in the management of pre-schools. That would be an absurd extreme. I am concerned that the Government have moved to the other extreme: placing curriculum and regulatory requirements that are too onerous on those groups. We are considering an environment such as a church hall where groups of kids play with plasticine or train sets, and do painting. I have seen manuals that suggest that if children go outside and play in the leaves it will give them a sense of momentum and direction. Those thick manuals that contain detailed analysis of individual child behaviour put into fine detail what belongs to common sense.
 It is impossible for staff to devote time in their paid working hours to absorbing and managing information. I have seen detailed curriculum plans and day-by-day lesson plans for individual pupils, which push voluntary organisations in informal environments too far towards formality. The proprietors of the groups tell me that that is making it more difficult to attract staff, and more difficult to do the job, which is ultimately putting their groups in jeopardy. That will not be universally true, but we cannot afford to lose pre-school groups. We are making their lives too difficult.

Stephen O'Brien: I was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment and the Education Sub-Committee during the last session. The Committee produced an early years report. Among a host of issues, with which I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will be familiar, was the question of
 whether those responsible for supervising and managing such groups should be qualified. Could someone unqualified be trusted?
 Difficulties have arisen in my constituency because a number of gifted amateurs are part of the provision. Although I recognise that qualifications may be desirable, the demands of the timetable—the ability and the inclination to carry it out—are such that one playschool has closed in my constituency, and two others are under threat. It is an increasing concern, and that is why I support my hon. Friend's new clause.

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for that example. The framework and inspection should establish whether the children are well looked after and happy. Small children are spending time away from their parents in a strange environment. Are they happy in that environment? Are they receiving guidance, and a range of activities that help them to develop their skills? Those are the questions that I would want an Ofsted inspector examining a pre-school group to ask. Ofsted inspectors should not have to go through detailed study plans for three-year-olds line by line.
 The new clause would not remove the Government's right to inspect, or its right to say how things should be done, whether a particular playgroup is functioning appropriately and whether the children are getting the attention they need, deserve and must have. In keeping with the principles that the Minister has set out for other parts of our education system, particularly for secondary schools and the opt-out rights that the Bill provides for them, if Ofsted is satisfied that a pre-school group is performing effectively we should be providing guidelines, not imposing requirements.

Caroline Flint: That is different to what is being proposed in the new clause. There is an argument about what Ofsted inspection criteria should apply. I have some sympathy with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the buildings in which different groups operate. We have made Ofsted inspections of primary and secondary schools more light touch, although that is more of an issue for Ofsted inspections of early-years education and the criteria used. That is better than having a clause in the Bill that allows an opt-out.
 Although I have some sympathy with the main point about what inspection regime should apply to nursery education, I do not think we should have a clause in the Bill whereby we could end up with a fairly erratic procedure that does not deal with the main issue.

Chris Grayling: The reason for highlighting Ofsted is that it is the tool that the Government use to monitor whether a nursery is performing well and whether its standards are acceptable. They are inextricably linked, although I would want to have the same debate about the exact nature of the inspections that are provided.
 If it is accepted by the relevant authorities—which in this case would be Ofsted because that is who would carry out inspections on the ground—that a pre-school group or nursery is well run, and that the children are being looked after and developed effectively, it should 
 be able to say, ''We don't need to adapt what we are doing or to spend huge amounts of time going through detailed lesson plans, because the inspectors have come in and seen what we are doing, and have said that the school is great and is working well.'' 
 That is what I am seeking to achieve through the new clause. I believe that the Government are imposing unnecessary paperwork even when a pre-school group is well run. This is a classic case of lesson plans being drawn up for inspection even though the inspector may never look at them, except to have a quick glance through them. They are often an unnecessary additional work load for people who are already hard pressed. That is particularly so in areas where it is not easy to find staff, and where groups often depend on mothers helping out as volunteers. It is simply not necessary to regulate those groups unless there is evidence that they are under-performing. 
 I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to allowing less constraints as opposed to the rigidity of the foundation stage curriculum. Manuals several inches thick are required even if Ofsted says that a pre-school group is doing fine, and is looking after and developing its children well. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell has just used the key phrase ''the rigidity of the pre-school age curriculum''. That is the point that we are all concerned about. It is because of the increasing rigidity of that curriculum that new clause 3 is necessary.
 I have become increasingly concerned that the dividing line between compulsory and non-compulsory schooling is becoming very unclear. It used to be clear that schooling began at five, and we quite rightly talked about rising fives, but now we are entrenching in the Bill the need for pre-school education. In the remarks I made and the questions I asked about 10 minutes ago I was trying to pin the Minister down on this point, which for clarity I shall repeat. I am certainly in favour of including pre-school measures in the Bill, and am pleased at the Government's commitment to pre-school provision, which the Minister reiterated a few moments ago. However, the problem is that if we are too rigid, we will end up with a system that tries to fit the child—even a very small child—into the system, rather than the system fitting around the child. 
 I have been looking into this matter, and one of the groups from which I have taken advice is the Pre-school Learning Alliance. It says that: 
 ''Moves such as extending the National Curriculum to include the foundation stage taught to children aged between 2 years and 5 years could undermine further the already growing perception that compulsory schooling begins before 5.'' 
That may be a reasonable thing to do, but the alliance goes on to explain the difficulties. I am sure that the Minister will understand my worry, and why I support my hon. Friend's new clause, which would bring more flexibility into the system. The Pre-school Learning Alliance said: 
 ''Currently, the foundation stage is defined as starting at 3 and finishing at the end of the reception year. The Bill proposes defining the start and end of the foundation year entirely by reference to the school year rather than the age of the child. For some children, the start of the foundation stage will be when they are 2. Many parents will view this with concern.'' 
 I echo that feeling. Many parents would view with concern the idea that the foundation stage could start when their child was two years old. For children born in August and entering reception classes when they are just four years old, the foundation stage will end the following July when they are not yet five. We should admit that that is a problem. Children are born at different times of the year. There are 365 days in a year, but only three or four days when a child can start a term. That has always been a problem. We are setting down rules for very small children. I welcome a semi-compulsory education provision for pre-school children. However, if we make the system too rigid, it will not benefit the children who should be taking advantage of it. That is why my hon. Friend's new clause is necessary. 
 If pre-school nurseries and other groups have the freedom to modify curriculum provisions, the problem will be solved. The provider will be able to ascertain that a certain group of children who officially fall into such-and-such a category are, for example, three or four months younger. To use the phrase that we used earlier, their maturities would not fit with what is laid down in part of the curriculum. Therefore, we need to have the freedom to modify the curriculum for them. 
 I hope that the Minister recognises that I am trying to be helpful. I support the new clause, because it would introduce flexibility and enable providers, most of whom are responsible and know what they are doing, to modify the provision to suit the children in their care.

Ivan Lewis: We are committed to early-years education, but not to any old early-years education. It has to be of the highest quality. We do not want to invest in our children's earliest years only to find that that significant extra investment and commitment were not achieving the objective of allowing children, of whatever age and at whatever stage, to achieve their potential. That is what all forms of education should be about.
 It would be wrong to say to some providers that they will have access to the same resources and be subject to the same inspection regime but, because they are a small voluntary organisation or a small private-sector provider, they are not required to fulfil the same foundation stage curriculum requirements. 
 That is insulting to the voluntary sector. I worked in the voluntary sector throughout my working life—when I had a proper job, as some might say. As a result, I understand the voluntary sector reasonably well and believe passionately in its unique contribution to public life. I sometimes get fed up when ''voluntary'' is equated with ''amateur.''

Chris Grayling: I hope that the Minister will forgive me: I am not sure whether the word ''codswallop'' is parliamentary language. We are not discriminating between voluntary, non-voluntary and state
 provision, but are saying that a school that is doing well according to Ofsted will not be subject to the same curriculum requirements as a school that is not doing well. I should be grateful if the Minister would address our comments.

Ivan Lewis: That is not what the new clause says. In his contribution, the hon. Gentleman referred to burdens on the voluntary sector. I agree that there must be an appropriate balance between demanding a quality framework and certain standards, and not over-regulating and over-burdening a public service. I am sure that there is consensus in the Committee about that, and an acceptance that Governments, of whatever persuasion, do not always get the balance right at the first shot.
 However, the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to community-based groups, grass roots organisations and voluntary organisations that will have access to the same levels of resource. It is right that such groups are funded, because they provide an innovative, responsive service to their clients. It is right that certain input and output standards should be achieved in return for state funding, which, historically, was not available to many groups. It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for the Government to put parameters around a significant expansion of support and resources. 
 We are making extra investment not simply to expand volume but to increase massively the quality of early-years education provision. Even under the Conservative Government there was limited provision. It was not always of the highest quality—possibly because of the very limited state support—but the people who provided that early-years education did their best, often in very difficult circumstances, with limited access to resources. Some were entirely dependent on voluntary contributions.

Eleanor Laing: Once again, I do not disagree with the principle. The Minister is absolutely right, but he seems to have misunderstood the intention of new clause 3. It is not that there should not be guidelines, which must be drawn up if we are spending taxpayers' money, or a curriculum, but that there should be flexibility so that small children, who are not all the same, can be treated as individual people and not just as statistics according to when in the year or half year they were born. If the Minister accepts that each individual child should be treated as such, he must accept that new clause 3 is necessary to provide a degree of flexibility.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for making me aware of that. I am not confused, but was just coming to that point. We need to distinguish between over-regulation, by which we place excessive burdens on public services, including education, and demanding and expecting certain standards in return for state support and, in effect, state accreditation. By regulating, we are telling parents that they can have confidence in the provider, from whom their child will have a high quality experience.
 Mr. Turner: I am sorry that the Minister introduced that point, as that confuses the issue substantially. Registration is entirely different from regulation and accreditation. Accreditation relates to inspection, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred, and is what guarantees quality. The regulation merely guarantees that the schools can tick certain boxes, but does not guarantee quality.

Ivan Lewis: In most circumstances in which well-motivated and professional teachers and leaders provide those services, the fact that they have access to guidance helps them to deliver a quality service. Therefore, the foundation stage in the curriculum is another part of the commitment to parents that in most cases there will be access to provision that is of a higher quality than when there was no foundation stage in the national curriculum and there were not the resources that are now being invested in early-years education. Inspection will identify where that higher quality provision is missing.
 The guidance on delivery of the foundation stage allows teachers and leaders of the providers more flexibility than in any other part of the national curriculum. Most providers welcome that, and that is what new clause 3 seeks to achieve. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell says that he wants a more flexible approach to the capacity to deliver the foundation stage, but he is not advocating the removal of the requirement of that stage.

Eleanor Laing: Yes.

Ivan Lewis: However, the guidance gives leaders of those groups a significant amount of discretion and flexibility to achieve the objectives and outcomes.
 The hon. Member for Epping Forest referred to two-year-olds. Clause 72(2) makes it clear that the foundation stage could not begin before the child's third birthday. The hon. Lady quoted from a letter about compulsory schooling, its definition and when it begins. The Government's pledge on three and four-year-olds relates to parents who want their children to benefit from early-years education. I do not think that there is any parent in this country who believes that they have to, by law, send their child into an educational situation at the age of two, three or four. It is a slightly unfair accusation to say that by putting the foundation stage into the curriculum as part of this legislation that we have somehow blurred the edges in terms of parents' perception of when compulsory schooling begins.

Eleanor Laing: A moment ago I was intervening merely to say that it is a welcome difference from our normal proceedings for the Minister to give me a straight answer to the question. Although he has moved on to a second question, I thank him for his straight answer to my first question. In going on to the second point, I would like to clarify and point out the concerns of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which stated:
''the intention to extend the definition of primary education downwards to include the foundation stage and children as young as two undermines the distinction between pre and post compulsory education and may further diminish the status of parents as their children's first educators.''
 I see the Minister nodding in disagreement. That is precisely what I want him to do. I am raising this point because I want to have the Minister's assurance properly minuted as part of our deliberations in this Committee. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government have a clear intention as to when schooling is compulsory and when schooling is not compulsory, because parents ought to know this. What is actually happening in practice is that parents are being forced to send their children to primary school reception classes much earlier than they want to, so that they can secure a place in a primary school of their choice. Therefore, that distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory education is being blurred. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government know what they are doing there.

Ivan Lewis: I am not sure that nodding in disagreement is something that one can do. I can make it absolutely clear to be minuted, to be put on the record, and to be reported in any publication, that new Labour has no intention of introducing compulsory education for two-year-olds.
 We have covered this in the contributions made by the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Epping Forest, who made a reasonable overall point about the balance between regulation and the requirement to deliver a standard. It is a reasonable point to make, but new clause 3 is not justified by the current situation. There is more flexibility than at any other stage in the national curriculum in terms of the foundation stage. It is not justified at all in terms of what is happening, nor is it desirable in terms of the kind of quality early-years education that the Government seek to deliver. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell to consider withdrawing new clause 3.

Peter Pike: Order. New clause 3 has not been moved, it cannot be moved yet. The only proposal before us at the moment is that clause 85 stand part of the Bill. The other items are grouped for discussion, but have not yet been moved.

Chris Grayling: In that case I shall not attempt to move new clause 3, but I shall seek from the Minister the reassurance for which I was going to ask him in return for withdrawing new clause 3. He rightly made the point that all this discussion is about the balance between over and under-regulation of an important part of our education system. I seek his assurance that over the next few weeks and months he will take the time in his busy schedule to sit down with some providers of those services and listen to the concerns that they have about over-regulation in the curriculum, and that he will act upon those concerns.

Ivan Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is part of my job as a constituency Member and as a Minister. Baroness Ashton has responsibility for this
 policy area and deals with these matters in the other place. I shall certainly relay those comments to her for when the Bill is considered there.
 Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 78 and 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages

Don Touhig: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in page 53, leave out line 10 and insert—
 ''(a) design and technology,
 (b) information and communication technology,''.

Peter Pike: With this we may take Government amendment No. 290.

Don Touhig: I hope that hon. Members will welcome a small but helpful clarification that is the purpose of amendments Nos. 289 and 290. Clauses 80 and 81 refer to the single subject of ''technology'', which has not existed within the national curriculum in England for approximately six years. Amendments Nos. 289 and 290 simply replace those references with the two subjects that do exist within the curriculum—''design and technology'' and ''information and communication technology''. The legislation works in its present form, but sustaining the notion that there is a national curriculum subject called ''technology'' is seen by many to be unhelpful—hence the amendments.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 - Curriculum requirements for fourth key stage

Amendment made: No. 290, in page 53, leave out line 38 and insert— 
''(a) design and technology, 
 (b) information and communication technology,''.—[Mr. Touhig.]
 Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Power to alter or remove requirements for the fourth key stage

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Phil Willis: Clause 82 restates section 368 of the 1996 Act, so it is not new. What has changed is the fact that part I and clauses dealing with earned autonomy allow groups of schools to disapply or change the national curriculum, which can also occur through innovation.
 The clause implies that only the Secretary of State may order or amend. If, under earned autonomy, a school wants to change key stage 4 and opt for the intermediate international baccalaureate—or, in Wales, the Welsh baccalaureate—would permission of the Secretary of State be required, or can schools act individually through earned autonomy to apply the clause to their circumstances? It should be clarified whether the 10 per cent. of schools that gain earned autonomy—it relates only to pay and conditions and the national curriculum—are most likely to exercise it in respect of key stage 4, for which changes in the curriculum are expected.
 When the Minister—I am delighted that it will be the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills—responds, he will be unable to disclose the contents of the Green Paper on the 14-19 curriculum, which I understand is being published next week. The Bill must meet the requirements of the 14-19 curriculum—flexible provision to allow schools and colleges to offer a plethora of different types of post-14 curriculums. Under the 1996 Act, schools were not intended to have the level of autonomy that the Secretary of State wants to give them. Nor did today's plethora of different school organisations then exist. Grant-maintained schools were the only exception to the main rule: everyone else fitted into the traditional patterns. 
 We are now going to have city technology colleges, academies, perhaps city academies, a plethora of different faith schools and all sorts of different organisations. We hope that we are also going to see 14-19 organisations reflecting, as in Exeter, a dynamic view of a new education system with a different vision. I am not trying to be difficult, but trying to clarify that this part of the Bill—my amendment to clause 82 is only one example—will not thwart the opportunities coming down the road.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We need to separate the power to innovate from what may become universally the norm—key stage 4, for example. If a school wanted to innovate by changing its delivery of the curriculum or becoming exempt from current curriculum requirements, other things being equal, would the Secretary of State look favourably on such an application? I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if an individual school applied to the Secretary of State and met all the relevant criteria—and a significant part of the application related to the organisation of key stage 4—it would indeed be acceptable for the Secretary of State to consider it. There would be no difficulty in respect of other changes that Parliament may choose to make for key stage 4 in all schools. The particular power to innovate that we would like for a school relates to key stage 4.

Phil Willis: The Minister will recognise that, if the Secretary of State grants a school those powers to innovate under part 1 and it gets on with it, an order must be made if the school wants to change the
 requirement for a national curriculum under clause 82. That would mean that each school that wanted to innovate in respect of its curriculum, whether or not it had earned autonomy, would have to have an order passed through the House. That seems incredibly cumbersome. However, it may not be what the Government intend and I may be misinterpreting such matters because I am not as informed as the Minister.

Ivan Lewis: I cannot accept that last comment. There is no contradiction between the new power to innovate and clause 82. I shall clarify the power to innovate. If an individual school's definition in its application to the Secretary of State of how it would like to innovate is related to key stage 4 curriculum changes, and the application meets all the relevant criteria and qualifies for the right to have access to the power to innovate, there would be no legislative barrier under the Bill that would prevent a school from putting such an application before the Secretary of State. As for that individual school's request, there would be no requirement for an order to go through the House. We shall enable that process to take place under the power to innovate. There would be no such requirement for each school.
 Perhaps I can outline the whole picture for the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and refer to the wider changes that will follow the publication of the document in respect of the 14-19 framework and a full and open consultation process. As the hon. Gentleman said, while people have not yet read the detail of the publication, there is a significant consensus about its principles and objectives. Both sides of the House and the world of education have been waiting for a long time for a distinct 14-19 phase of education and the opportunity that that will provide. 
 The curriculum for key stage 4 could be changed universally for all schools only under an affirmative resolution, whereby a debate would have to take place in both Houses. As for the power to innovate, the Bill will give an individual school the right to apply to the Secretary of State and that application will be focused specifically on key stage 4. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?

Phil Willis: Is the distinction that clause 82 deals with the universal changes to the national curriculum? Will it cover schools that wish to stop GCSE examinations at 16 because they have adopted a new curriculum framework?

Ivan Lewis: I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether, under clause 82, schools could prevent themselves from holding examinations in respect of the 14-19 framework.

Phil Willis: Under the 14-19 framework, I hope that the Minister will agree that the GCSE will be irrelevant for many schools. I am sure that he has heard my previous comments on such matters. Will clause 82 and this part of the Bill allow those schools that have the power to innovate and the power of earned
 autonomy to say that they would not undertake GCSE examinations because they wanted to vary the national curriculum?

Ivan Lewis: So far as I know, the answer is no. Clause 82 is not relevant to examinations. There is a distinction between examinations and curriculums. It is difficult to respond to a specific question about proposals that have not yet been published. When they are published and there has been a consultation process from which conclusions have been reached, the Government will place before the House the specific changes that are required from a legislative perspective to deliver on the consensus that will hopefully have been achieved at the end of the 14-19 consultation exercise. If that included a requirement to change legislation on examinations and that were consistent with Government rather than Liberal Democrat policy, it would be part of the resolution that would be placed before the House.

Phil Willis: It is important to get this clear. Clause 81 makes clear the requirement to specify attainment targets, and the Government consider attainment targets at key stage 4 through GCSE, because key stage 4 does not involve key stage SATs. It is therefore not fair of the Minister to say that the two things are not inextricably linked—they are. He said that schools will not be able to opt out of GCSE, and therefore the attainment targets at key stage 4, irrespective of whether they have earned autonomy. That will disappoint many schools.
 We are all considering different ways of engaging young people from the age of 14 to 19, and the Minister may not share Liberal Democrats' thoughts, but I think that he would agree that ruling something in or out at this stage is probably not right. We should all be floating and debating ideas. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said and ensure that we do not say to schools that genuinely want to fly different kites and use different systems, ''Well, you can do that, but you must still stick to the framework that we have put in place.'' That would be sad, but I have exhausted the subject unless the Minister wants to reply.

Ivan Lewis: I just want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we seek to be radical, imaginative and innovative on future 14-19 provision, although we might define innovation differently. I cannot reveal the document's content in detail, but a significant part will talk about the importance of 14-19 provision being introduced over a period. However, there will be significant early opportunities for piloting, which is important. We all know that there is already good practice on 14-19 provision. In many parts of the country, we can find quite imaginative approaches.
 There is a specific link point. The hon. Gentleman said that some 14-19 changes may require structural change. If we are to have a distinct phase of education and learning for 14 to 19-year-olds, organisations that are set up to consider 16-19 provision will need to be reconsidered. There is no point in advocating a completely new phase and approach if we leave in place all the same levers, financial arrangements and 
 performance measures. It would not be logical to do so. There is a need to consider 14-19 provision in a totally integrated way. 
 Let me give one final response that should help the hon. Gentleman. There is no legislative requirement to take the GCSE and therefore no need for a change in that respect. 
Mr. Brady rose—
Mr. Willis rose—

Ivan Lewis: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady: I am sorry if I am raising the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough wanted to make, but he made a particularly important and valid point—that under clause 81, where there is a requirement for attainment targets and measurement of attainment to take place, the only available mechanism appears to be GCSE. Is that an implied legislative requirement for GCSE to be taken?

Ivan Lewis: It is not necessarily the case that pupils or institutions are required to do so. The levers and pressures in the system lead schools and individual pupils to GCSE, which is why the points made about 14-19 education are valid. If we are considering a distinct 14-19 phase of learning, it is appropriate to examine the factors that influence that.

Chris Grayling: The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have announced that they would scrap GCSEs. What the Minister has said suggests that the Government are moving in the same direction. Will he clarify that they will not?

Ivan Lewis: Yes, the hon. Gentleman can have total clarification: the Government do not support the Liberal Democrat position that the logical conclusion of having a 14-19 phase would be the scrapping of GCSEs. When we produce the document, it will clarify why that is not the Government's position and how we would deliver a radical, innovative approach to 14-19 education.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?

Ivan Lewis: If I give way, the hon. Gentleman will go off track again.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman said that he had exhausted the subject.

Phil Willis: I have been named in despatches, which was unfair of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and the Minister. The Minister read my speech to the north of England conference word by word: it is emblazoned on his heart. That was not the point that was made. There was no attempt to suggest the universal scrapping of GCSE. I would scrap the idea, reaffirmed by clauses 81and 82, that the only way that one can assess attainment at the end of key stage 4 is GCSE. We should challenge that: for some schools it will mean scrapping GCSE. In others, young people will do GCSEs at different stages, or a combination of GCSEs and other types of qualification. I would hope
 that the Government would say that the mantra of GCSE is up for grabs, rather that permitting innovation as long as the GCSE is kept. That is madness.

Ivan Lewis: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view. There is no consensus on the future of GCSEs. We will have an exciting debate about 14-19 education when the details are published. The principles are clear, and it is only fair for hon. Members to consider the detail and respond accordingly inside and outside the House. We are strongly committed to an extensive consultation process throughout the country. The details will have a significant impact on education in this country.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 102 and 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Establishment of the national curriculum for england by order

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Flint: I seek clarification from the Minister because subsection 12 provides that science shall not include the subject of
''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and Human Immunodeficiency Virus''. 
Groups, and colleagues who are members of the all-party AIDS and HIV group, have raised questions about that element. I understand the issues around sex education and health, and am mindful of having to find a balance between, on the one hand, parents' rights under the legislation to withdraw their children from sex education and, on the other, health issues and what fits in with the Bill and may be taught within the ambit of a science lesson.

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend raises a valid point, which has been raised by other hon. Members. At this stage, the Government are not proposing to change the status quo, but I am willing to give a commitment to discuss it further with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to see whether there is a satisfactory way forward. The Government feel that it is appropriate to maintain the status quo on such a sensitive issue, but are open-minded, and willing to consider any representation.

Chris Grayling: Is it the case that science teachers may not refer to AIDS or HIV in a science lesson or give any indication about their nature? If that is true, it is nonsense, and I would echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley.
 Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is the case, because of legislation introduced by a Conservative Government. There are grounds for re-examining the issue and considering representations. There will be strong views on both sides of the argument as it is an emotive issue, and it is important in those circumstances to strike the right balance. I am willing to consider the matter further, although the Bill at this stage will maintain the status quo.

Andrew Turner: The Minister clarified that in an unexpected way. I am sure that he is right, but a lay reading of subsection (12) does not imply what he has said. All that the Secretary of State may do is ensure that the science attainment targets, programmes of study and assessment arrangements laid down in the national curriculum do not include those elements. As far as I can work out, there is no prohibition on a teacher answering a question on those subjects. Will the Minister consider that and perhaps correct the impression that he gave to the Committee?

Ivan Lewis: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assertion. A teacher may answer a question, but the legitimate debate is also about the national curriculum requirement. It was decided some years ago that it would be appropriate to prohibit the issues that are specifically mentioned. Whether that is still appropriate is a matter for a reasonable discussion and debate, in which we are willing to engage.

Andrew Turner: When the Minister says prohibit, he means prohibit from inclusion in the national curriculum, not prohibit from being taught.

Ivan Lewis: It cannot be part of programmes of study.

Andrew Turner: It cannot be part of programmes of study laid down under the national curriculum; it can be part of a programme of study developed by a school, teacher or governing body. We are in the same territory as when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was accused of banning the teaching of recent history. All that was prohibited was the inclusion of recent history in the national curriculum.

Ivan Lewis: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the debate is legitimate, notwithstanding his point about whether it should be in the national curriculum.

Phil Willis: The Minister was trying to be reasonable in his answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley. It is clearly nonsense that a teacher can teach about HIV/AIDS, except in a science lesson as part of the national curriculum. No rational being could support that, other than fundamentalists who believe that that sort of thing should not be taught anywhere, in which case we are back to the section 28 debate. Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight goes into apoplexy, let me say that the Minister worried me when he said that he understood that that was a genuine issue for debate, but that there would be no change during the Bill's consideration. That is sad, as
 it invites us on Report and in another place to table amendments that challenge the Government's thinking. I suspect that the House would greatly support such a challenge.

Ivan Lewis: I have clarified my assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. Ministers are willing to consider the issue before the Bill is passed, although our position is outlined in the clause. My hon. Friend raised a legitimate issue, and Opposition Members tabled several legitimate amendments. The Government are willing to reflect on whether we should maintain the status quo, or whether the status quo is illegitimate and unacceptable.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 84, 104 and 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - development work and experiments

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 263, in page 56, line 30, at end insert:
''(1A) For the purpose of enabling development work to be carried out, a school outside the maintained sector may be fully admitted to the maintained sector during which the National Curriculum shall not apply. If the experiment was considered successful, the school would continue as part of the maintained sector.''
 This afternoon's sitting started well. The Minister accepted good, common-sense amendments and offered to bring them back in the form that he preferred later in the proceedings. I hope that we may continue in a similar vein, and that Ministers will accept that amendment No. 263 does not seek to undermine the Government's intentions, but pushes in the same direction as ministerial rhetoric and the overall thrust of the Bill. Clause 86 sets out certain special cases in which the curriculum may be suspended to enable 
''development work and experiments to be carried out''. 
The clause appears to limit those circumstances. The disapplication can take place only in a maintained school or maintained nursery school, and only for a specified period that is set out in guidance. Through the inclusion of new subsection (1A), amendment No. 263 would widen the circumstances in which it was possible for Ministers to disapply the curriculum in order to encourage experiments and development work. The amendment would extend beyond existing maintained or nursery schools to allow 
''a school outside the maintained sector'' 
to be 
''fully admitted to the maintained sector'' 
for the purpose of development work. For an experimental period, the national curriculum would not apply. The amendment states: 
 ''If the experiment was considered successful, the school would continue as part of the maintained sector.'' 
If Ministers are genuine in their desire to promote development and experiment, and if they really welcome the innovation that might occur through 
 disapplying the curriculum for a time and in particular respects, they should be open to the possibility that the maintained sector will improve if we accept various types of schools. The Steiner-Waldorf schools are an example, although many alternative approaches to education are, or may in the future, be practised in this country. 
 If Ministers were to accept the amendment, they would leave the door open for the maintained sector to accept schools with teaching methods or curriculums that prohibited them from entering that sector, although the amendment is permissive and does not oblige schools to do so. In order to facilitate that, such schools will be allowed the same disapplication of curriculum requirements as that which the Bill will allow maintained schools. That is a simple point, against which it is difficult to argue. 
 I hope that Ministers will consider the amendment as an opportunity to underline their commitment to innovation and exciting experiment. I am hopeful that they will give it a fair wind.

Phil Willis: In one of our earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) raised a question with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about faith schools such as fundamentalist Muslim schools. The latter said that as a key element such a school would be required to conform to the national curriculum. That seems in exact contradiction to the amendment. Are we saying that all schools in the independent sector should have the proposed powers? Would they cover existing public schools such as Eton or Winchester, if they wished to apply but did not follow the national curriculum? The hon. Gentleman is trying to run two horses in opposite directions at the same time.

Ivan Lewis: The difficulty with the amendment is that it makes no reference to school organisation committees, or to the need to comply with the school organisation committee requirements, criteria or application process. Clearly, if a new school wants to come into the maintained sector, it would be required to go through those processes. It also makes no reference to a requirement to apply to the Secretary of State for any disapplication or variance of the national curriculum. That is its weakness.
 If hon. Members can envisage a hypothetical set of circumstances, it would be possible for a school that is outside the maintained sector to come into it. However, that would have to be done through the usual agreed processes, and it would have to receive the approval of the school organisation committee. Having gone through that process, the school would have the opportunity to request disapplication, as would any maintained school. 
 However, on what basis would a school outside the maintained sector come into it? Such a school would have to meet a certain set of requirements through the school organisation committee before being accepted as a maintained school. Having been accepted as a new maintained school, it would have the opportunity, like any other new maintained school, either through the 
 power to innovate or other mechanisms that are available, to apply to the Secretary of State, as the amendment suggests, for a disapplication of the curriculum. As part of its application, it would have to demonstrate its reasons for doing so. Having been an independent school, it would have to demonstrate that it was not simply because it did not want to put into practice the national curriculum. It would have to give much better reasons than that to obtain the Secretary of State's approval. 
 The existing framework allows a school to come from the non-maintained sector into the maintained sector through the school organisation committee. Having become a school in the maintained sector, it would have the right, like any other school in that sector, to use the available legislative mechanisms to request that part or all of the curriculum should be suspended. In considering any such application, the Secretary of State would look at whether there was a clear attempt to abuse or exploit the system—whether the school had simply used a backdoor route to enter the state system and obtain state funding, and, then, not to apply the national curriculum. Its request would be judged on the same basis, in that context, as other maintained schools.

Andrew Turner: The key point that emerges from the Minister's comments is that there is a sequence—first, apply to the maintained sector, and, then, apply for disapplication. I am sure that he will understand that the problem is that some schools would be able to serve pupils in the area better were they in the maintained sector, but do not wish to join the maintained sector if it means that they cannot keep their existing organisation and curriculum.
 For the benefit of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I shall demonstrate that I am talking about neither Eton and Winchester nor other and better reputed public schools. Rudolph Steiner schools, for example, do not believe that they deliver education best by using technology at an early age. They also believe that the outcomes from their schools are considerably better than those from other maintained schools that deliver the national curriculum. I am sure that many of their proprietors would like the benefits of Rudolph Steiner education to be more widely enjoyed, but they do not wish to place one of their schools into the maintained sector in the sequential way that the Minister described. Even if the amendment were not accepted, it would be useful for the Minister to consider admitting a school to the maintained sector on the basis that derogation from the national curriculum would follow.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to a specific category of school: the Steiner schools. The Government support a pilot initiative for three Steiner schools to show that we are willing to consider and examine such an arrangement in certain circumstances. We will examine how the scheme works
 within constraints that have been laid out and an agreement between the Steiner schools and the Government.
 The Government would be reluctant to open the floodgates in the manner suggested by the amendment without the operation of the usual channels. The key to the school organisation committee is the support of the local community. There must be a demonstrable groundswell of support among parents, the family of schools and the community to show that admitting a new school into the maintained sector would be positive, would add value to the school, would give options to parents, and would make the school an asset and a legitimate part of the family of schools. 
 Our main worry about the amendment is that it does not put such a safeguard in place. It would apply a blanket view of the matter to all schools that are outside the maintained sector. The Government have been willing to enter discussions with Steiner schools. Most members of the Committee would agree that Steiner schools have something to offer and that many parents choose the Steiner model. We have been willing to support the scheme on a limited, pilot, three-school basis. The schools will come into the maintained sector in the manner suggested by the amendment. However, the Government could not support a situation that allowed that basis to be applied as the norm. There is a long way to go before we would be comfortable or happy to accept that. 
 We have had an interesting and useful debate but, on the basis that I outlined, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Graham Brady: The debate has been useful and interesting. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough accused me of running two horses in opposite directions. It may be in order for me to apologise for trespassing on his turf, if that is what I have been doing. In fact, there are real distinctions between this debate and our debate on faith schools. The hon. Gentleman is slightly mischievous because this debate is worth while.

Phil Willis: Yes, it is.

Graham Brady: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
 The Minister's principal objection to the amendment appeared to be procedural and that the amendment contained no reference to the school organisation committee—the usual channels, as he termed it—or a requirement for the Secretary of State to approve admission into the maintained sector. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight pointed out, impediments lie in the usual channels that may restrict the sensible development of experimentation on this matter. The Minister may wish to consider that, although I do not press him to take a particular procedural approach to this issue.
 The Minister must accept that schools that cannot follow the national curriculum face a prima facie difficulty in applying for admission to the maintained sector, as ordinarily it might be expected that they would apply the national curriculum as one of the 
 requirements of acceptance. He was concerned that this might become a back door route to state funding, as he put it. I am keen to signpost the way to the front door. There could be an entirely open and clear procedure that showed schools in that position how to proceed. I am grateful that the Minister was more positive in dealing with the substance of the argument, rather than with the procedural aspects of the amendments. 
 I have no desire to press the matter to a Division. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether there may be a way of improving the route for schools that do not follow the national curriculum that may make it easier for them to apply and to gain admission to the maintained sector, very much in the spirit of what clause 86 already seeks to do for schools within the maintained sector. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Timms: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) referred earlier to the intention to continue our discussions into the evening. May I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that there is a letter on the Table for each hon. Member containing information that they may find helpful in preparing for our resumed sitting later on.

Peter Pike: That was not really a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that hon. Members have taken note of what the Minister said.

Andrew Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. As I understand it, the knife falls at seven o'clock this evening.

Peter Pike: The knife falls at seven o'clock, and at that stage certain business has to be disposed of. Morning sittings finish at exactly one o'clock once the business is disposed of. By order of the House, afternoon sittings can continue as long as the Committee is of that opinion. The Whip must move the motion to adjourn the Committee. As I understand it, we will break for dinner after we have disposed of the business at seven o'clock.

Andrew Turner: In the Order of the Committee of 11 December, it says that we will finish at seven o'clock tonight.

Peter Pike: All that we must finish at seven o'clock is the business to be disposed of up to that stage. We can go beyond that, and that is what will happen. The business that I will take at seven o'clock will be that up to where the knife falls. The Committee can continue beyond that after seven o'clock.

Graham Brady: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. It would be a matter of considerable concern if we proceeded to aspects of the Bill on which hon. Members have had no opportunity to table amendments. We expected that certain aspects of the
 Bill would be dealt with on Thursday, and that amendments would have to be tabled by close of play tonight.

Peter Pike: I have no powers to adjourn the afternoon sitting of a Committee until the motion has been made. It is not in the Chairman's power to do that. The Chairman has some power to influence the hour at which the meal break is taken, but if the Committee wishes to continue to two o'clock or seven o'clock tomorrow morning that is quite permissible.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I seek your clarification on an associated point. Does that mean that the Government Whip and the Ministers are entirely in charge of the timetable, irrespective of any absence of agreement or even discussions—

Peter Pike: Order. I must now put the question. I will respond to that point of order once I have dealt with the business.
 It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and to Orders of the Committee [11, 13, 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2002], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Temporary exceptions for individual pupils

Amendment made: No. 291, in page 58, line 7, after 'school' insert 'or maintained nursery school'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 89, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Information concerning directions under section 89

Amendment made: No. 292, in page 58, line 39, after 'school' insert 'or maintained nursery school'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107 - Development work and experiments

Amendment made: No. 293, in page 69, line 132, leave out 'him' and insert 'it'.—[Mr. Timms.] 
 Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 108 and 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 - Temporary exceptions for individual pupils

Amendment made: No. 294, in page 70, line 16, after 'school' insert 'or maintained nursery school'.-[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Information concerning directions under section 110

Amendment made: No. 295, in page 71, line 1, after 'school' insert 'or maintained nursery school'.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 112, 92, 113 and 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: I shall now respond to Mr. O'Brien's point of order. I cannot adjourn the Committee until the question has been agreed to. When the motion is moved in the afternoon sitting, it is debatable and can be voted on.

John Heppell: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Both Opposition spokespersons received a letter telling them of the intention to run late tonight. I know that the Conservative Whip has his letter, as I have seen him put it in his file. They should not pretend that they did not know about it.

Graham Brady: Further to that point of order, Mr Pike. I have received no letter from either the Government Whip or a Government Minister in that regard. I am not prepared to hear it suggested that I have. I have received no such letter. The hon. Gentleman said that he had written to me.

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Government Whip seeks to place on the record an impression that is simply not true. I received a letter yesterday, and I daresay that the Liberal Democrat spokesman or Whip received something similar. It should be stated that it did not confirm the intention to go on past 7 pm. After receiving the letter, I instigated a telephone conversation in which I made it perfectly clear that the official Opposition declined the proposal, because the Government Whip would not consider or make any effort to meet our concerns. Normally, a deal requires interest by both parties in removing or shifting the knives. The knives are causing distortion in the debate, and are preventing us from holding the Government to account for a Bill that they seek to put through the Committee with the claim that it has had democratic scrutiny. On that basis, it is a failure of the process.

John Heppell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. My recollection of the telephone conversation is different. The Government will move the knives if the Opposition indicate either where we will get to in our
 consideration of the amendments or the amount of extra time by which they are prepared to extend the sitting. If they are prepared to sit for another three hours, we will move the knives three hours.

Stephen O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: Order. I cannot continue to accept points of order. I indicated that the Chair cannot rule on the matter. I suspect that the Government wish to take some of next Tuesday's business to ease next Tuesday. It is not for me to express a view on whether that is appropriate. Debate a motion to adjourn the sitting if you wish, but do not continue to raise points of order on which the Chairman is not in a position to give an answer.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: I will accept it only if it really is a point of order, Mr. Turner. The Committee can debate a motion to adjourn and can vote on it.

Phil Willis: I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.
 I apologise to you, Mr. Pike, and to the Government Whip. I have only now received the letter. It states clearly that the Government Whip is thinking about taking such action; it certainly does not say that he intends to. 
 This is a serious issue. The Ministers and the Government Whip think that the Opposition are procrastinating over the legislation. We are not. People other than members of the Committee are interested in the Bill. I urge the Minister to think carefully about what I am about to say. The part of the Bill that we shall deal with next is of crucial significance, particularly to the quarter of a million teachers who expect the Bill to be properly debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I have put down a series of amendments that resulted from discussions with teachers' organisations about their major concerns. We understood that the timetable to which the Committee agreed would have a knife on Thursday that would begin at clause 115 and go up to clause 144. That is what people who are coming to listen to the debates are interested in.Indeed, that was the assumption when teachers' associations approached us to table amendments to be debated on Thursday. 
 I accept that the Government have a right to say that we must get to clause 144 by the end of Thursday--I do not like it and accept it reluctantly--but it would be a travesty to bring forward Thursday's business to this evening. It would be absolutely disgraceful. I am sure that the Minister, on reflection, would not wish to deal with such an important issue in such a cavalier way, and I urge the Committee to agree to the Adjournment.

Graham Brady: I am appalled at the Government's demonstration of bad faith. In our deliberations to date we have had a number of disagreements about the
 timetable that has been applied to these proceedings. We have had a particular disagreement over the Government Whip's attempts to place a so-called knife in the proceedings so as to constrain debate of those aspects of the Bill on which Opposition Members wish to focus. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough says, we have had no choice but to accept that the Government have used their majority to force the Committee to follow a certain timetable, irrespective of our wishes and without any consensus. 
 In the Committee's proceedings so far, the Government have held to their timetable. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has said, Opposition Members and outside bodies and organisations have also been aware of that timetable and have relied on it. One of the consequences of the Government forcing through an extremely tight timetabling motion has been that it has placed pressure on the Opposition parties, which do not have the benefit of a large number of officials to assist and advise them in the process of the Bill. It has also placed considerable pressure on outside organisations that have been struggling to follow the process of the Bill, to draft and promulgate amendments and to brief members of the Committee. 
 It is nothing short of bad faith for the Government Whip to try to end that practice without notice. It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to seek to prevent proper debate and scrutiny by imposing time constraints, and now we have the ultimate abuse of the Government trying to manipulate the timetable so as to prevent members of the Committee from tabling amendments. It is a gross abuse. I hope that the Minister will accept that that is an affront not only to democracy and the procedures of the House, but to outside bodies and organisations that rely on the Committee to provide proper scrutiny of the Bill. Having had a chance to consider the situation that has arisen, I hope that the Minister will now recognise that it would be appropriate to allow a sensible interval to enable amendments to be tabled and proper scrutiny and debate to continue.

Stephen Timms: I want to resist the aspersions cast by the hon. Gentleman as they are unhelpful. I say to him and to the whole Committee that there is a genuine problem. It has been clear on a number of occasions that Opposition Members have wanted additional time to carry out a thorough scrutiny of the Bill. That has been repeatedly offered and resisted. With the best of intentions, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East thought that it would be helpful—we discussed this—if we were to get ahead of the knives with a discussion this evening of the clauses from clause 115 onwards. That was certainly not done with any intention to restrict hon. Members' ability to make points in the debate or to table additional amendments. Some amendments to clause 121 have already been tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: No, I will not. We have absolutely no intention of restricting debate, quite the opposite. We want to ensure that members of the Committee have the time that they clearly want to consider these matters fully and carefully. That is the intention behind the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East has made. My hon. Friend wants to make a further suggestion, given the concerns now being expressed. It is very important to make it clear on the record that the motivation behind these proposals is to give additional time. There has been frustration on our part that those offers have been resisted up until now. My hon. Friend has made a helpful suggestion, and I think he will want to make a further point on it in a moment.

Chris Grayling: The offer that was made yesterday took place after the deadline for the tabling of amendments for discussion today. Therefore, it would be impossible for hon. Members to adapt their plans to debate issues tonight.

John Heppell: Opposition Members should have tabled amendments already.

Andrew Turner: One of the things that I have learnt from sitting on this Committee, which is only my third Committee, is that it makes sense to table some amendments in the expectation that they will be debated. It also makes sense not to table other amendments, because that is a waste of time not only for me, but for officials who presumably have to prepare briefings for every single amendment whether or not it is likely to be debated, just in case we should miraculously reach it. Perhaps I am doing them a disservice. It seems to me that it is appropriate, and the most sensible way of conducting ourselves, to put down amendments reasonably late but obviously in time to ensure that they are debated.
 Members of the public have come to me or written to me and asked me to consider tabling amendments. I have taken on some of their proposals for earlier clauses, and for clauses that I expected to be debated later in the Bill. That is why some amendments are put down late, but still in time to be selected. I hope that in his response, the Minister will understand that that is the situation that people outside this Committee face.

John Heppell: The problem tends to repeat itself. We make an offer of more time, it is not taken up, and a day later the Opposition complain that they have not had enough time.
 I know that there are concerns about the knives, but I will make the offer again, so that it is on the record and so that everyone can hear what I am saying. Whenever the Opposition agree to do any extra time, we will be happy to move the knives for whatever amount of time they require. That offer has never been 
 taken up in the past, on any occasion. I can see that the proposal to continue this evening is causing difficulty—although not for me, I might add. 
 The Government's timetable does not require us to finish at seven o'clock. It states that we start at half-past four on Tuesdays and at half-past two on Thursdays. [Interruption]. I see that you are nodding, Mr Pike. It is normal in Committees for knives to fall when votes will be made. There is nothing wrong with getting ahead of schedule instead of being behind schedule, which seems to be the Opposition's aim. The timetable does not say that we finish any night at seven. I thought that hon. Members understood that. We have already worked two nights after seven o'clock. [Interruption] Yes, I know, I am coming to the rest. 
 I do not agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough on one point. 
 If the hon. Gentleman had argued that he did not have time to table amendments before Christmas, I might have agreed with him. However, we are half way through January, and he should have recognised that there was a chance that we might reach this point. It is not the Government's job to second guess the incompetence of Opposition Members who fail to table amendments when they should. 
 I recognise that there has been a misunderstanding, although I know that the Opposition Whip received my letter, and that he understood my intentions, because we had harsh words last night, when I said that we were going to ensure that there was extra time, regardless of whether he wanted it. I took that view because I was sick of Opposition Members constantly carping that they did not have sufficient time to consider matters, even though whenever I offered them time, they refused it. Having said that, I respect the fact that the letters were placed on the board when it was late, and that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough did not receive the letter. As he has tabled amendments, it would be unfair of me to insist that we continue tonight. 
 I am glad that we have had this debate because it has given us a chance to clear the air. I say again that if the Opposition want to change the knives, that is not a problem, as long as they offer time in exchange, or tell us which point the Committee would reach. 
 Everything that needs to be said about the matter has been said. I support the Adjournment motion of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Stephen O'Brien: I wish to clarify a few of the perceptions that have been generated by what seems to be a particularly narrow—or blinkered, even—view of what might be the normal expectation of what can be achieved by dialogue or by a deal between parties that are seeking to make our democratic proceedings work.
 I hope that the Liberal Democrats agree that, for the Opposition, a principle is at stake. There was recognition at the outset that, whatever the merits of 
 the Programming Sub-Committee, 24 January was always going to be a tight date to set for the end of our consideration in Committee. Many issues were raised with the Chairman at the time, and the anticipated difficulties have, by and large, occurred. I am being up front about that. 
 For example, this afternoon we have covered no fewer than 43 clauses. We have managed to cover that ground within the time that was granted for this sitting, about which there was no dispute. The difficulty is not the extra time. We accept that there has been extra time in Committee. There is no unwillingness about that. On the contrary, there is a deep willingness on the part of the official Opposition—and, I think, of the Liberal Democrats—to have more time. 
 The distortion within our debates has been caused by the knives. That is the controlling mechanism that—along with the extraordinary approach of the Government Whip—is distorting the Opposition's ability to do their duty and to choose what they believe to be the areas that need to be subjected to the most debate and scrutiny.

Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is right that the Government Whip has taken this action on the basis that it would be wrong if there were not to be an opportunity to debate amendments that have been tabled in good faith by members of the Committee? I believe that my hon. Friend has taken the right and honourable course of action.
 We have talked about scrutiny, but does the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) accept that the Opposition have been offered—by my reckoning—an additional nine to 12 hours during the course of the Committee's deliberations, and that if they had not declined those offers, we would have been able to scrutinise far more clauses than we have to date?

Stephen O'Brien: It is clear that the Minister has—possibly deliberately—failed to understand that it is the operation of the knives that causes the distortion. It is simply ridiculous for the Minister to suggest that we forget the knives. The knives are the operable part of the Government, and they are not in the gift of Opposition Members.
 I am sure that you, Mr. Pike, as the safeguarder of Back Benchers' rights, would be the first to support us in doing our job. The Opposition should table amendments either to improve the Bill or to probe the Government's thinking. The Bill must be scrutinised and we should debate whether clauses should stand part. It is difficult to hold discussions with a Government who are intent on simply holding to a timetable with knives that may mean that we do not cover the areas that we believe require scrutiny and time.

John Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way and I shall make a further undertaking?

Stephen O'Brien: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I want to say that we are often assured that the knives will be considered, provided that we promise to reach a certain point. I must make the point
 that it is completely outside my gift or power to say that I can deliver the Liberal Democrats, and I should be appalled if the Liberal Democrats said that they could deliver us. We are independent parties, as well as independent Members of Parliament. We would expect to have to agree to reach the end of a clause, but it is possible that at the point at which a knife falls we may not believe that there is a point of contention, whereas the Liberal Democrats might believe that there is. That is perfectly legitimate.

John Heppell: Let us accept for the moment that the knives are staying. Even with the knives, the entire Bill must be considered. We may not want to consider some parts as thoroughly as others. However, wherever the knives fall, while we are working and have extra time, we shall be considering something, and that will allow extra time at the end for the matters on which hon. Members have complained that the knives have fallen.
 I give the further undertaking that, as I have said before, I will not merely move a knife. I shall move whatever knife the hon. Members for Eddisbury or for Altrincham and Sale, West want, as long as I have a guarantee that I shall have that extra hour. [Interruption.] All that I am asking is for hon. Members to agree to do an extra hour and a half on a Tuesday night, and I shall move by an hour and a half whatever knife hon. Members want to be moved.

Stephen O'Brien: I recognise that that was intended to be an intervention. A difficulty between the Members and parties represented on the Committee and a rather unhappy series of tense relationships relating to what we all believe to be our duty and job in relation to the Bill seems to have arisen. There is an apparent mindset among the Government, or part of the Government, that the motivations and intentions of those who represent Opposition parties are not genuine or in good faith and that an attempt is being made to filibuster or procrastinate, which the evidence does not support.
 The next point is allied and simple. The Government Whip suggests that amendments to all clauses should have been tabled before Christmas. However, to some extent, issues arise during the course of debate. I fully accept that the parts of the Bill are to some extent discrete. However, the Minister has said that there is a theme or linkage in the Bill. When we debate one part, it can affect another. There is therefore a need for reflection. Furthermore, it so happens that in those happy days when the Labour party was in opposition, it tended to table a great raft of amendments right up to the procedural deadlines specified in Standing Orders of the House. 
 It is completely tendentious of the Government Whip to suggest that somehow we should have been sufficiently prescient, or, indeed, had sufficient resources, without the back-up of the civil service, when one might be able to get some allocation of 
 resources—[Interruption.] It is perfectly proper and right for Opposition Members and, indeed, Labour Back Benchers to table amendments right up to the deadline. 
 It is wrong for any Government Member to suggest that it is out of order or unhelpful not to focus on amendments for clauses that are being anticipated according to a timetable that has been set out way in advance, without any consideration of the true merits of the various aspects of the Bill that the Opposition believe should be debated. It might have been reasonably helpful to have had this airing, but the Government should recognise that the knives are the distortion. If the Government want to give as much time as they like and remove the knives, we are willing to sit. 
Mr. Willis rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call Mr. Willis, I should say that I would hope that some of the matters that have been raised in the past few minutes could be sorted out informally in the usual way outside the Room. When I served on Committees, it was normal for us to sit until, perhaps 3 am, or even 9 am the following day. We used to think that we were lucky if we finished at 10 pm on a Thursday night. Committee members should know that the relevant Standing Orders have not been changed. They provide that the afternoon sitting can continue until the Adjournment motion has been moved and agreed. I will not be here on Thursday this week, but I will be back next week. I hope that Committee members now understand. It is not for me to judge the rights and wrongs of what is debated.

Phil Willis: We have now spent 32 minutes on this.

Stephen Timms: I am slightly anxious that, in the heat of the debate, we might have lost the point. There is a pile of letters on the Committee Table, and I hope that hon. Members will each take their copy away with them.

Phil Willis: I am grateful that the Government Whip has supported what is a reasonable case. We are reaching some important clauses, especially clauses 115 to 144, and I hope that he will agree to remove the knife at the end or our morning sitting on Thursday and run through to clause 144 by the end of play. That would mean that we could deal with the difficult issues of teaching, given the assurance, which I believe that I have, that we will reach clause 144 by the end of play on Thursday.

Peter Pike: Order. There needs to be discussion on whether that is permissible for Thursday. A Standing Order provides that Committees should not sit when Question Time is taking place in the House, and that must be taken into account. I do not know the
 rules exactly, and Committee members would have to check them before running straight through. There are rules, and that is one of the reasons why we brought the Thursday sittings forward. 
 Mr. Willis: I commend the Adjournment motion.
 Question put and agreed to. 
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock, till Thursday 17 January at half-past Nine o'clock. The following members attended the Committee:

The following members attended the Committee:

Pike, Mr. Peter (Chairman)
 Bailey, Mr. 
 Brady, Mr. 
 Coaker, Mr. 
 Flint, Caroline 
 Heppell, Mr. 
 Kumar, Dr. 
 Laing, Mrs. 
 Lewis, Mr. Ivan 
 Miliband, Mr. 
 O'Brien, Mr. Stephen 
 Purnell, James 
 Timms, Mr. 
 Touhig, Mr. 
 Turner, Mr. Andrew 
 Willis, Mr.